Ars Technica are reporting on an “unethical” HTML video copy protection proposal drawing criticism from W3C reps.
Mozilla’s Robert O’Callahan warned that the pressure to provide DRM in browsers might lead to a situation where major browser vendors and content providers attempt to push forward a suboptimal solution without considering the implications for other major stakeholders.
They prefer Flash because it supports DRM, but see the web going HTML5. And are now trying to patch DRM into the solution to protect their position.
Note the W3C stakeholders who are promoting this.
Is there some irony that the Occupy HTML people don’t even use Flash to promote their message?
Have they embraced the spirit of reality and compromise especially considering the following mea culpa?
…it crashes a lot…It requires constant security updates…It doesn’t work well on most mobile devices…It’s a content plugin, developed during the era of closed standards and unilateral corporate control of web technology.
Or perhaps it’s the greatest troll piece ever?
John Gruber has an opinion in his piece showing how to load HTML5 video instead of Flash in Safari on OSX.
That this works for so many sites shows that Safari on Mac OS X is perfectly capable of playing a lot of video on the web that seemingly requires Flash. Web developers should start serving video via the HTML5 <video> tag by default, and fall back to flash if the <video> tag isn’t supported.
It’s pretty clear Safari is a tiny proportion of the browser market, but what would be the impact if webservers took his advice globally? On other browsers?
On Adobe’s share price?